Disposed

K K Sachith v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC8 Jul 2016Bail Appl./4515/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of a pre-arrest bail application by directing petitioners to surrender for interrogation. It held immediate release was not viable due to forensic needs and the likelihood of obstruction. Regular bail may be decided by the learned Magistrate on merits after interrogation.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners directed to surrender for interrogation; regular bail to be considered by Magistrate on merits.

K K Sachith Vs State of Kerala — Anticipatory Bail | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF JULY 2016/17TH ASHADHA, 1938

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 4515 of 2016

¶6

CRIME NO. 1199/2016 OF MATHILAKOM POLICE STATION, THRISSUR

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED 1,2, & 5:

¶8

1. K.K. SACHITH, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O.KRISHNAN, KIZHAKKEDATH HOUSE, PERINJANAM WEST P.O., PIN-680 686, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶9

2. K.P.SHAJI, AGED 46 YEARS, S/O.PURUSHOTHAMAN, KIZHAKKEDATH HOUSE, PERINJANAM WEST P.O., PIN-680 686, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶10

3. SNEHADATH, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O.PEETHAMBARAN, MOONAMKUTTU HOUSE, PERINJANAM WEST P.O., PIN-680 686, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶11

BY ADVS.SRI.B.RAMAN PILLAI (SR.) SRI.R.ANIL SRI.SUJESH MENON V.B. SRI.T.ANIL KUMAR SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM (NILACKAPPILLIL) SRI.M.VIVEK SRI.A.RAJESH SRI.B.KRISHNA KUMAR SRI.SUNILKUMAR

¶12

RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT:

¶13

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.

¶14

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.LALIZA T.Y.

¶15

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08-07-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

msv/

¶17

P.UBAID, J. --------------------------------------B.A No.4515 of 2016

¶18

---------------------------------------

¶19

Dated this the 8^th day of July, 2016

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

The petitioners herein are the accused Nos.1, 3 and 5 in Crime No.1199/2016 of the Mathilakam Police Station, registered under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 427, 506(ii), 324 and 307 r/w 149 of the Indian Penal Code. They seek pre arrest bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶22

The prosecution case is that at about 1.00 pm on 19.5.2016, these petitioners and some others assaulted the defacto complainant Shiby and his friend Sajeev during a political clash involving two political factions, and inflicted injuries on their body with weapons like sword, in an attempt on their life. The petitioners have produced the FIR in another crime registered on the statement given by one Santhosh. The connected documents in the said crime will show that the said Santhosh, and also the second accused, had sustained injuries in a connected incident at 12.00 noon on the same day.

¶23

This application for pre arrest bail is opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor on the ground that the custodial

¶24

¶25

B.A No.4515 of 2016

¶26

interrogation of the petitioners is absolutely necessary as part of investigation, and that the accused are now released, they will definitely obstruct the proper and effective investigation.

¶27

In the nature of the allegations I feel it appropriate to direct the petitioners to surrender before the investigating officer for necessary interrogation. This Court has already granted regular bail to the accused Nos.2, 4, 6 and 7 as per order dated 24.6.2016 in B.A No.4438/2016. This Court has also observed that a prosecution under Section 307 IPC may not be possible in this case. However, materials are there for a prosecution under Section 308 IPC. This being not an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, appropriate decision on the request for bail can be taken by the learned Magistrate. I feel the necessity of interrogation of the petitioners for the collection of some materials concerning them, their actual involvement and also the weapons used by them and others. Without such interrogation investigation cannot be completed. On hearing both sides, and on a perusal of the materials including the case diary I find that the petitioners cannot be immediately released under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioners will have to surrender

¶28

B.A No.4515 of 2016 3

¶29

before the investigating officer for interrogation. After necessary interrogation, the petitioners will have to be produced before the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction.

¶30

In the result, this application for bail is disposed of as follows:

¶31

a) The petitioners will surrender before the

¶32

investigating officer if they so opt between 9 am. and 10 am on any day within ten days from this date for the purpose of interrogation as part of investigation.

¶33

b) After necessary interrogation, the

¶34

investigating officer will produce the petitioners before the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction by 4 pm. on the date of arrest itself.

¶35

c) In case application for regular bail is filed by the petitioners, the same shall be judiciously considered and decided on merits on the same day by the learned Magistrate, having in mind the observations made by the Court.

¶36

Sd/P.UBAID JUDGE

¶37

¶38

//True Copy//

K K Sachith v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K K Sachith v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sajid Vs State of Kerala

Benny Vs State of Kerala

Vijayan Vs State of Kerala

Firoz Khan Vs State of Kerala

Sabu Vs State of Kerala

Vineesh Vs Sub Inspector of Police,Museum Police Station